You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes. Agreed. Naturally occurring objects "limit ease of expansion". But in doing so, they do not become "THE" border. They only become "THE" border when ideology has convinced the ideologues that expanding is necessary. Expanding to where? Who is doing the expanding and why? In order to spread what? Without the idea, without religion, without the concept of nationality, without a whole host of other ambitions, the natural occurring objects would not even be called a border. They might be called the landscape or the terrain.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

Quote:

You realize you had the answer to the question, right?

Right! I do know.

A rose by any other name would still be subjectively priced at $80.00 a dozen on Valentines Day .....

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say. [/quote]

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes. Agreed. Naturally occurring objects "limit ease of expansion". But in doing so, they do not become "THE" border. They only become "THE" border when ideology has convinced the ideologues that expanding is necessary. Expanding to where? Who is doing the expanding and why? In order to spread what? Without the idea, without religion, without the concept of nationality, without a whole host of other ambitions, the natural occurring objects would not even be called a border. They might be called the landscape or the terrain.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

Quote:

You realize you had the answer to the question, right?

Right! I do know.[/quote]

A rose by any other name would still be subjectively priced at $80.00 a dozen on Valentines Day ..... [/quote]

A rose is just a rose; A brick is just a brick; A forest is just a forest. They are objects. Subjectively though, a rose costs some infatuated nut $80 per dozen, while a diamond ring, according to the diamond seller's business, should cost a young man 3 months salary which of course is highway robbery. But these robberies are nothing compared to the cost of a passport and an identity to a nationality which are also subjective and also costs lives. Waste of money and waste of lives.

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes. Agreed. Naturally occurring objects "limit ease of expansion". But in doing so, they do not become "THE" border. They only become "THE" border when ideology has convinced the ideologues that expanding is necessary. Expanding to where? Who is doing the expanding and why? In order to spread what? Without the idea, without religion, without the concept of nationality, without a whole host of other ambitions, the natural occurring objects would not even be called a border. They might be called the landscape or the terrain.

When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

Quote:

You realize you had the answer to the question, right? [/quote)

Right! I do know.

A rose by any other name would still be subjectively priced at $80.00 a dozen on Valentines Day ..... [/quote]

A rose is just a rose; A brick is just a brick; A forest is just a forest. They are objects. Subjectively though, a rose costs some infatuated nut $80 per dozen, while a diamond ring, according to the diamond seller's business, should cost a young man 3 months salary which of course is highway robbery. But these robberies are nothing compared to the cost of a passport and an identity to a nationality which are also subjective and also costs lives. Waste of money and waste of lives.[/quote]

Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the concensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.

Quote:

You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!

Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination. Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.

You are not being difficult, at least at the present time , because you are correct. The creation of most borders are purely subjective. I have to say most because some are natural features, such as coastlines which are objective in that they limit ease of expansion as well as define the border.

Coastlines are just coastlines and forests are just forests. Neither can "limit ease of expansion" or " define "THE" border", as you say.

Actually they can and do. Walk to the Atlantic coast of North America and using only an axe expand your "territory" at least 10 miles eastward. Now go to the bank of the Ohio river where the Kanawha river joins it and do the same. One is possible and the other not. That is called alimiting factor.

Quote:

Wayne Stollings wrote:

Actually they do. That is what slowed European expansion westward was the coastlines defining how far to the west they could build houses. It also works for animals as there are different species in Europe than in North America.

Yes. Agreed. Naturally occurring objects "limit ease of expansion". But in doing so, they do not become "THE" border.

Yes, they do. There are no more of your people living on the other side of THE border it creates.

Quote:

They only become "THE" border when ideology has convinced the ideologues that expanding is necessary.

No, it is a border because it is a finite defined line at which your territory is limited.

Quote:

Expanding to where?

No where at that point, as it is a border.

Quote:

Who is doing the expanding and why?

Humans do that naturally. When we were hunter/gathers looking for food and when we bacame agricultural looking for more fertile land for the new people.

Quote:

In order to spread what?

The population.

Quote:

Without the idea, without religion, without the concept of nationality, without a whole host of other ambitions, the natural occurring objects would not even be called a border.

Sure it would. Just as there are names for everythign else.

Quote:

They might be called the landscape or the terrain.

They might call it the frontier, or the border of the expansion of that population.

animal-friendly wrote:

Yes, of course. When we go for a walk in the woods, a tree has fallen which creates a natural border. We must climb over it if we want to get to the "other side". I suppose you could call the fallen tree a border. But the fallen tree is just a fallen tree. It has no ideology unless we want to give it one. So when you say that natural features define "THE" border, I have to ask, what border? The naturally defining objective one, or the ideologically defined subjective one?

Quote:

You realize you had the answer to the question, right?

animal-friendly wrote:

Right! I do know.

It seems not.

Quote:

A rose by any other name would still be subjectively priced at $80.00 a dozen on Valentines Day .....

animal-friendly wrote:

A rose is just a rose; A brick is just a brick; A forest is just a forest. They are objects. Subjectively though, a rose costs some infatuated nut $80 per dozen, while a diamond ring, according to the diamond seller's business, should cost a young man 3 months salary which of course is highway robbery. But these robberies are nothing compared to the cost of a passport and an identity to a nationality which are also subjective and also costs lives. Waste of money and waste of lives.

You are stuck on trying to add some subjective interpretation to a border. It does NOT require a passport in all cases nor is it related to any of your assimed wastes. It is a deliniation between two areas, one generally populated by one group in this discussion and the other not.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the concensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.

animal-friendly wrote:

Quote:

You may provide as many studies as you please, but even current society is basically corrupt. Imagine what the animals endure under such a system!

Imagination is a large part of your claim, which means you will probably never change your belief because you merely created said belief from your imagination. Those who look at things such as evidence and statistics will not be swayed by your personal beiefs either.

Personal beliefs are good for one person and one person only. The concensus of personal beliefs become the belief of the group/culture/civilization/etc. and that is what statistics allow us to see. I may hold the personal belief that you do not deserve to live, therefore the belief of the culture that acting to fulfill such a personal belief is not acceptable. If we did not have the statistical ability to make such a determiantion it would be my personal belief compared to another's personal belief on an equal basis.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein